“Obama dashes ‘dream ticket’”

This article reports on Mr. Obama’s recent comments regarding the possibility that he would be a good running-mate for Hilary Clinton , were she to win the race to be the representative member for the Democratic Party. Mr. Obama is reported to have turned down this offer, with his fair share of humor. Considering his leading position in the Democratic race, he said he saw Hilary Clinton’s proposition as premature (1) and illogical (1). The illogical quality stems from the fact that one of Hilary Clinton’s main attacks against Obama throughout the campaigning period has been his alleged lack of readiness for the role of President (sic.). Thus, by his logic, if he’s not ready to become President, then why would she offer him a position that could put him in the role of President in a split-second?

This article also informs us about the ongoing media speculation, particularly over the past few days, that a Clinton-president, Obama-vice-president ticket would be both a possible and desirable combination. (That it would be desirable has been summed up quite nicely by the words “dream ticket.”) According to the article, this speculation has been occurring all over the news. The New York tabloids are but one cited example (1).

This article clearly raises the issue of trust. How should we respond to the articles in newspapers on this subject that continually raise the possibility of this “dream team” outcome, when Hilary Clinton is currently losing the Democratic race? Is it possible that these constant mentions stem from a deliberate attempt on the part of the media, subtly to influence the readers’ opinions, when they should simply be reporting results? Even this article in particular, which seems neutral at first, likens Obama to Al Gore, who lost the presidential nomination when he was running against Bill Clinton (2). At that time Al Gore said that he would not be a candidate for vice-president, and yet that was exactly what he became.

- from The Globe and Mail, March 14, 2008